I am just making a sweeping statement just for the sake of discussion.

What is known as Traditional TKD or Original TK-D is basically karate with an emphasis on kicks. This is me making a general statement looking at my own Moo Duk Kwan TKD, and Chun hon TKD at face validity.

Changing the name of an art, patterns, and minor movements does not create a unique art.

What I would say separates the Korean version or style/kwan/schools from their Japanese counterparts would be the emphasis put on kicks by the Koreans.

For the sake of argument I ask that we only discuss the physical aspects and not cultural philosophy. However, if you can bring up a point on just how the philosophy directly relates to combat strategy such as Aikido's yielding and redirecting energy. Which is a major influence on their physical techniques and their entire approach to combat. Please do so. But this is not a discussion on morals and cultural beliefs.

First of all the term "Traditional TKD" as universaly accepted Definition. Before 1955 there was no TKD. The name did not exist. Secondly, the term "Karate" has no universaly accepted definition. There are many systems that may use that name.

So, it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the people involved don't first agree on how terms are defined.

Now, if wee address 2 systems that may fall within the terms used, Shotokan for karate, and the first uniques system Chang Hon, to use the term TKD then noted fundamental differences are the Shotokan Level headed motion when steppining versus TKD knee flex to gnerate power resulting in a noticeable up and down movement of the head which is not unique to TKD but ues a metaphor of "Sine Wave' to describe it. Second large difference is the deeply rooted theory of Shotokan (with the story of funakoshi standing on the roof in a typhoon) versus the generating power even while jumping techniques of TKD.

There is no dispute that TKD shares it;'s roots - Shorin and Shorei with many Karate Systems. However, to say they are the same is to Say Judo is the Same As Ju Jitsu, or that many karate systems are the same as Shorin or Shorei.

I agree with Master Weiss & will go further. All MAs are the same, in the sense that they teach one to defend themselves. In the end a punch is a punch & a front snap kick is a front snap kick. So to the complete novice, the totally uniformed, put martial artists in a training room from all styles with the same generic gi, dobok, uniform, practice suit or blue jeans & a white T shirt, let them punch & kick the air & there would be little difference to the uneducated or unexperienced.

Now let them drift off to their own methods of training & emphasis & I think even the uniformed will start to notice some variance & variety. Through in rules of engagement & it widens. Then do the opposite, take out all rules & say anything goes & it goes back to a mish-mosh or a blur for the uneducated or novice.

That being said, in Korea prior to the end of the occupation brought upon by Japan losing WWII, there was only Korean archery, Japanese Judo and Kendo in Korea. When the original 5 Kwans opened (44/5-47) & Gen Choi Hong Hi started to teach in the military, along with Col Nam tae Hi (46-47), they all did some form of the karate brought to Korea by Koreans living overseas, namely in Japan. There was some minor Chinese influence, but it was basically karate, which Master Weiss points out has it differences & different veins as well. I believe this continued till well into the 50s. By the late 50s & early 60s changes were coming in order to make what they were doing more Korean. It started 1st with the name TKD in 1955, put forth by Gen Choi. The changes continued with the new Korean patterns he designed with the help of his soldiers under his command. These soldiers have variuos levels of experience & talent in the fighting systems employed in Korea at that time. So they started to develop a SD system for the military, which they called TKD as a mix of these styles of MAs at the time. So original TKD started as a MMA.

In the 60s new sports rules were developed by both the Jidokwan, which would become Olympic TKD & in the OhDokwan by Gen Woo Jong Lim, which would become the ITF rules. These 2 main types of TKD with their seperate emphasis & focus continue to evolve & develop today. Likewise there are far too many independents that have taken their own roads of development.So in the end, it really is in the eye of the beholder. We also must take into account the level of knowledge & experience that is behind the sets of eyes that is viewing these martial artists. To me & only for me, all MAs share much in common. But then again, a deep, careful analysis comparing MAs will always help show the numerous differences & emphasis or focus that they insist on. Only you, the viewer can ever determine for yourself, if it is all that different or just the same thing, more or less, with a different wrapper.For me, ITF or original TKD as left to us in 2002, is so much different from it roots which go back to the 1930s-50s. JMHOWhen I look at Olympic TKD today, I also see a unique Korean martial sport, that can not be confused with the same karate roots, but again, these are my eyes & MNSHO

the first uniques system Chang Hon, to use the term TKD then noted fundamental differences are the Shotokan Level headed motion when steppining versus TKD knee flex to gnerate power resulting in a noticeable up and down movement of the head which is not unique to TKD but ues a metaphor of "Sine Wave' to describe it.

Ah the arguable sign wave. I do not consider the up and down bouncing motion performed during patterns a real fundamental difference. Further more although it may cause some increase in power to step forward or even to bounce up and down (sign wave) while punching. I do not think it actually makes a significant improvement. Meaning it would make no real difference in combat. So whether the student does it or does not do it it really makes no difference. Especially when performed in such a formal manner such as patterns when no actual TKDist performs that way during combat.

And I do not mean to knit pick but the name Judo replaced the name Ju-jitsu/Ju-jutsu in Japan. Judo became the accepted term. The two are actually the same art. However, judo emphasizes throwing and sweeping techniques over bone breaking and ground fighting. At least this is what I have found in my studies.

By the late 50s & early 60s changes were coming in order to make what they were doing more Korean. It started 1st with the name TKD in 1955, put forth by Gen Choi. The changes continued with the new Korean patterns he designed

Once again as my original post stated. I do not consider that changing the name and the patterns creates a new unique art. Rearranging the same techniques found in the Shotokan forms (Pinans) and calling them something else is not unique. Particularly when they are the same exact techniques. Only performed in a different order.

Quote:

It started 1st with the name TKD in 1955, put forth by Gen Choi.

There is much debate whether Gen. Hong Hi Choi, actually came up with the name. Personally I don't mind giving him credit for it as it is so widely accepted. And he did promote his style of TKD endlessly.

Quote:

In the 60s new sports rules were developed by both the Jidokwan, which would become Olympic TKD & in the OhDokwan by Gen Woo Jong Lim, which would become the ITF rules. These 2 main types of TKD with their separate emphasis & focus continue to evolve & develop today.

With the emphasis on sparring, it is very obvious how TKD evolved. The old methods of training which were Japanese became obsolete and new scientific methods were employed in order to hone in on a more athletic aspect of sparring. Old philosophies such as one hit kill dropped, the kicking techniques evolved into a more dynamic arsenal allowing for more agility and versatility. This in my opinion is a truly a unique Korean style.

There is much debate whether Gen. Hong Hi Choi, actually came up with the name. Personally I don't mind giving him credit for it as it is so widely accepted. And he did promote his style of TKD endlessly.

Please define "much debate", as there is really very little credible debate about who came up with the name TKD. Years after GM Son Duk Sung left Korea he wrote a book in 1968 in which he called Korean Karate. It is funny that 3 years after the Korean Tae Su Do Association changed its name to TKD (1965) that GM Son never mentioned once in his own book that he came up with the name TKD that by now had become very popular & spread around the world by Gen Choi's team & followers. It is well documented that GM Son in 1959 fought openly with Gen Choi, refusing to give him a 6th dan & cancelling his 4th dan honorary cert. He also expelled 3 members of the CDK held in very high esteem. Afer GM Son left, these 3 were reinstated & played major roles in the devlopment of TKD & the CDK. Some say the source of his trouble with Gen Choi was that gen Choi did not select or allow him to come on the 1st TKD demo team abroad in 1959. GM Son also allied himself with different politicans thatn Gen Choi did. Additionally the word Tae was found from the Chinese characters which Gen choi as a noted caligraphist would have had knowledge of. No such claims have been made about GM Son's education background that would afford him the same access to the term.

So I would be very interested in hearing what you have found about the debate over who came up with the name.

A few martial arts schools in the area claim the same including ones like Fred Villari's M.A. ! If one is saying this to align itself with the term "MMA" and/or it's movement, then it's marketing! Ultimately most every martial art is a combination or mix of a few to a number of arts! In the end training martial arts is where: One trains, learns, compares, combines, adds, takes away from and forms their own martial art to suit their personal needs.

"Many Taekwondo pioneers have claimed credit for its formation, and several claim the title of "founder" or "father" of Taekwondo. These claims are often repeated by loyal followers of each of these pioneers, and their respective organizations, but there is too much controversy and opinion over the exact contributions, and significance of each person's role in order to state, unequivocally, that one is more important than any others. Rather than presenting a biased slant, it is best to state the facts, and let the reader decide for themselves."

Took this excerpt from a random site, it stated what I wanted to say. But I'd also like to add that in many books credit is often given to all the kwans and no one specific GM is ever credited.

A few martial arts schools in the area claim the same including ones like Fred Villari's M.A. ! If one is saying this to align itself with the term "MMA" and/or it's movement, then it's marketing! Ultimately most every martial art is a combination or mix of a few to a number of arts! In the end training martial arts is where: One trains, learns, compares, combines, adds, takes away from and forms their own martial art to suit their personal needs.

Yes it is pretty clear that original TKD started in the military under a general & his soldiers that had various levels of experience & talent in different fighting systems around in Korea at that time. There were of course other veins where other forms, system of styles of KMAs developed along, eventually many if not most of them using the name TKD. How those veins developed or progressed will vary. However it is also clear that the biggest & most influential vein, the WTF/KKW developed as a sport around new unique sports rules. What was done in the indivdual gyms varies & still does. However the KKW & SK universities have been teaching & graduating TKD younger generation masters who do have a somewhat standard syllabus, which does follow sports development of Olympic TKD

"Many Taekwondo pioneers have claimed credit for its formation, and several claim the title of "founder" or "father" of Taekwondo. These claims are often repeated by loyal followers of each of these pioneers, and their respective organizations, but there is too much controversy and opinion over the exact contributions, and significance of each person's role in order to state, unequivocally, that one is more important than any others. Rather than presenting a biased slant, it is best to state the facts, and let the reader decide for themselves."Took this excerpt from a random site, it stated what I wanted to say. But I'd also like to add that in many books credit is often given to all the kwans and no one specific GM is ever credited.

The quote above makes a lot of sense. However to come to this conclusion I realize that there are many forms or styles of TKD. The problem simply is that many do whatever they do, but have at some point along the way, simply applied the name TKD to their system.So 1st we must define TKD, then we can very easily see who is the founder, or principle founder for each form, style or system on TKD. It gets complicated when the other forms do not acknowledge the contributions of founders of another vein.

As to your point, many books take that approach as they do not want to highlight the connection to the original or ealry kwan founders, as that makes the link to karate, which the Koreans hate because of the suffering under Japanese rules for a half a century. So in effect they throw these founders under the bus for nationalist interests.The books that mention them, imo could do a better job of showing what kwan founder did & then what he can be credited with.Truth be told, it appears from looking at history, only 2 kwan founders played a role in TKD's development, Gen Choi Hong Hi (ODK) & GM Ro Byung Jik (SMK).

So while going a bit off topic, I'll state some facts, hoping that readers will feel that I have been balanced, despite my screen name, I look for facts, the truth of what happened & feel there is a lot of credit to go around. Hopefully readers will agree, if not, please call me on it.

1- there was no TKD before WWII ended2- in fact there was no traceable, verifiable serious link to any KMA of the past to the kwans that opened after WWII3- these kwans basically taught karate, with some minor Chinese influence by 7 men who studies abroad, mostly in Japan4- early attempts to unify were not successful5- 2 of the original kwan founders either were killed, went to the north or were kidnapped to the north during the Korean War, as such, they had little to do with TKD's development as the kwasn opened 1944-47, with the War taking place 1950-536- additionally Lee Won Kuk founder of the CDK fled to Japan to escape govt persecution as an alleged Japanese sympthazier by 19507- the name TKD came about by April 11, 1955, however it appears that only Gen Choi & those that followed him used the name, applying it to the system that they were developing in the Korean military as a mix of the fighting arts available to them at the time8- in 1957 Gen Choi, GM Son Duk Sung & I think GM Ro Byung Jik were involved in the formation of the TKD Association of Korea, with Gen Choi being VP, GM Son Secty Gen & GM Ro a top position as well, the president was a non-TKD man who was a politican9- this group collasped & Gen Choi then formed the KTA in 1959, with him as 1st president10- May 16, 1961 a military coup changed the SK govt to a brutal military dictatorship, later that year the Korean Tae Su Do Assoc was formed as they rejected the name TKD, Gen Choi losing politcal power as a result of the military coup eventually gets sent to Malaysia as an Ambassador11- Gen Choi returns to SK & in 1965 gets elected as 3rd president of this KTA & changes the name to TKD by 1 vote, the previous 2 presidents were another General & a politican, they refuse to accept his system & push him out & to the ITF he set up in 196612- GM Ro Byung Jik succeeds him as the 4th president of the KTA, followed by another politican & then KCIA operative & gifted politcal leader Dr. Kim Un Yong13- at this time the development of TKD takes 2 main roads, ITF & WTF14- Gen Choi, Col Nam Tae Hi, Gen Woo Jong Lim, Sgt Han Cha Kyo, Sgt-Major Kim Bok Man & many others help Gen Choi develop original TKD, original used as they were the 1st to use the name & apply it to their system15- Tae Su Do, a compromise name, as the non military TKD men, did not want to use TKD, however in 1965 they lost the vote by I think a 1 vote margin, so they used the name TKD starting in 1965, 10 years after the ODK did16- the Tae Su Do leaders were the 2nd generation Korean martial artists led by GMs Lee Chong Woo, Uhm Un Gyu & Lee Nam Suk, among others, their leader was the govt man Dr. Kim, who spoke 5-6 languages & eventually made TKD an Olympic sport17- in August of 1978 the kwans were numbered & retired, all roled into the KKW, the mecca of TKD, so for some, it is clear to see that they did not use the TKD name for some 23 years

See a lot of credit to go around.I am missing 1 kwan founder, but do you know why I didn't include him? or why I didn't include the 7th person who studied abroad?

My first problem is that the WTF people claim that TKD came from Taekkyon, but there's no historical evidence of that.

My other problem, related to the first, is that they fight over who founded TKD, but none of them give credit to the obvious fact that they took much of their system from Karate, as evidenced by the belt system. So what they should really do is give credit to Gino Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan Karate, for the inspiration he gave to General Choi Hong Hi, a 2nd Dan. But the WTF would never do that, of course.

We've gotten off topic. No matter what you call it. My original post states that TKD is really karate with a Korean name.

It is common knowledge that all the heads of the kwans were black belts in Karate.

And nobody really believes the universal lie that TKD has anything to do with Tae Kyon. Even instructors such as Herb Perez who writes articles on the subject...clearly goes along with this lie. On his schools website under TKD history it says it's 2000 years old and it comes from the 3 ancient korean kingdoms and blah, blah, blah.

So nobody can realy give some examples of just how "Traditional" TKD is truly a unique entity from karate.

I mean sign wave and patterns? That's just not really good enough.

Remember I'm not only looking at GM Choi's, but Moo Duk Kwan and all the other Kwans that clam "traditional" TKD.

My first problem is that the WTF people claim that TKD came from Taekkyon, but there's no historical evidence of that.

Yes I will go some steps further 1) there was 1 person credited with keeping Taek Kyon alive during the occupation & 2) he said straight out that he could find no one to practice with & 3) his people are on record saying that no TKD guys consulted them & finally 4) the martial sport TKD leader said they never consulted them either. The connection to Taek Kyon is pure rubbish, put forth to show that TKD did not come from karate brought to Korea from Japan, which we know it did, without any doubt whatsoever

Originally Posted By: TaekwonDoFan

My other problem, related to the first, is that they fight over who founded TKD, but none of them give credit to the obvious fact that they took much of their system from Karate, as evidenced by the belt system. So what they should really do is give credit to Gino Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan Karate, for the inspiration he gave to General Choi Hong Hi, a 2nd Dan. But the WTF would never do that, of course.

Not exactly true, as Gen Choi clearly makes it know that he came up with his system, the 1st system to be called TKD from his karate training. The WTF will credit him, but no one will credit Master Funakoshi, that is right

We've gotten off topic. No matter what you call it. My original post states that TKD is really karate with a Korean name.

Yes we have, but remember that we can not come up with answers without deeply considering not only the history but the many factors that manipulated the history & the reasons why.

Originally Posted By: TeK9

It is common knowledge that all the heads of the kwans were black belts in Karate.

Not really, GM Hwang Kee never claimed a BB, nor have I seen anything that indicated he was.

Originally Posted By: TeK9

And nobody really believes the universal lie that TKD has anything to do with Tae Kyon. Even instructors such as Herb Perez who writes articles on the subject...clearly goes along with this lie. On his schools website under TKD history it says it's 2000 years old and it comes from the 3 ancient korean kingdoms and blah, blah, blah.

Yes & no. I would imagine as a high level WTF official he must tow the company line to an extent. But he is also on record with Dr. S. Capener where they debunk the false story as well. So he likely just cuts & pasted the made up fantasy story for his website, as that is what many do. That story was fabricated by GM Lee Chong Woo for the SK Dept of Ed & has become sort of a "holy story" that is now being laughed at. 1st it was the karate guys who pointed out the fallacy & the Koreans & TKD students ignored them. However now so many TKD people & younger generation scholars & leaders are now speaking the truth & the power of the internet is helping the genie out of the bottle, eventually others will fall in line imo

Originally Posted By: TeK9

So nobody can realy give some examples of just how "Traditional" TKD is truly a unique entity from karate. I mean sign wave and patterns? That's just not really good enough.

Yes you are right, from your perspective. I can't change that, but remember it is all in the eye of the beholder. I can add in all the flying kicks, the mutiple kicking, fast counter kicks, quick stepping as well, but it is a moot point. However if one watches an Olympic TKD sports match, do they really think of Shotokan karate?

Originally Posted By: TeK9

Remember I'm not only looking at GM Choi's, but Moo Duk Kwan and all the other Kwans that clam "traditional" TKD.

Sorry but Moo Duk kwan stayed Tang Su Do & developed along the Su Bak Do line, which in some way gives them some credibility to a link to KMAs of the past. Hwang Kee never accepted the name TKD & never stayed with any unification effort. He was toally against the sports emphasis put in place by the 2nd generation leaders. He, along with his rival, Gen Choi, became villified by the sports TKD guys & the SK govt. GM Hwang Kee took his cause the the courts of SK, that is how much he fought the KMA men that were in power

A big difference between "tradtional" TKD and Shotokan is the absence of sweeps. I am aware some trad TKD schools include sweeps in step sparring, but Shotokan does it in kihon and kumite (i.e. step-sparring and free sparring).

Don't know why TKD doesn't allow these in free sparring. I've heard it said that sweeps are dangerous. I think that is silly. Sweeps are no more dangerous than most of the other moves found in TKD or Shotokan, and a heck of a lot safer than a kick in the head!!

Another difference I have noticed is that TKD makes more use of circular/reverse kicking motions. They don't seem to do this as much in Shotokan.

I remember a Shotokan student telling me about a seminar he attended. The instructor was Frank Brennan, a legend in modern Shotokan. He said that Brennan made extensive use of the Reverse Side Kick in tournaments. Apparently they weren't use to it in Shotokan comps and because Mr Brennan was tremendously fast, he used it to great effect.

Just some differences I've come across. Is "traditional" TKD simply Shotokan by another name? As ITFUnity says, it is in the eye of the beholder. You could argue that Somobo and BJJ are Judo by another name, seeing as both these systems are started with a Judo base. Depends on your perspective I suppose.

I consider TKD to be a Korean version of Karate. No denier has ever explained why, if that's not so, they have the same belt system and same type of white uniform as Karate - did Taekkyon pracitioners ever have that?

If people are really interested in looking at the the martial art of TKD, and not only the sport part, I would guess the former is pretty close to Karate..is that accurate you think? Mind you, this is not saying that it's "unoriginal" anymore than Karate is unoriginal when it is also a "mixed bag" of influences. Just like Karate did in the last 10 or 15 years, I have noticed in magazines like Jissen lately a desire for TKD to return to "combative" roots.

A big difference between "tradtional" TKD and Shotokan is the absence of sweeps. I am aware some trad TKD schools include sweeps in step sparring, but Shotokan does it in kihon and kumite (i.e. step-sparring and free sparring). Don't know why TKD doesn't allow these in free sparring. I've heard it said that sweeps are dangerous. I think that is silly. Sweeps are no more dangerous than most of the other moves found in TKD or Shotokan, and a heck of a lot safer than a kick in the head!!

I would say & I have read that the reason sweeps were made against the sports sparring match rules was to make TKD Korean & show it is different from karate. The primary way the Kukki TKD or Olympic TKD men made their KMA different was from the new unique sports rules that were developed mainly in the JiDokwan & was called Tae Soo Do in the early 60s.The ITF has extensive sweeps, takedowns, foot tackling, throws etc, but are often neglected as their sports rules developed in the OhDokwan by Gen Woo Jong Lim & were adopted as official ITF tournament rules made them illegal techniques as well. Far too many ITF schools simply train tournament sport fighting & not real fighting or SD emphasis, which is sad, as it is not only the WTF that is guilty of this. The ITF schools have no excuse, as it is all in the syllabus, but far to many ignore the entire & rather extensive, comprehensive syllabus as outlined in the 15 volume Encyclopedia of TKD written by Gen Choi for all of TKD

I consider TKD to be a Korean version of Karate. No denier has ever explained why, if that's not so, they have the same belt system and same type of white uniform as Karate - did Taekkyon pracitioners ever have that?

You will get little arguement from me, as I said it is in the eye of the beholder. All MAs share many things in common & have things that allow them to stand apart. Some emphasis the commonality, while others see more clearly the differences.There is no doubt TKD was born from karate, via the 7 Koreans that studied abroad, mostly in Japan, with some minor influence. However while the early TKD guys did use the belt system & karate gi, both the ITF & WTF have different doboks & have adopted different belt colors. These are just minor cosmetic changes, & in the case of the ITF, these changes are based upon Korean customs

I consider TKD to be a Korean version of Karate. No denier has ever explained why, if that's not so, they have the same belt system and same type of white uniform as Karate - did Taekkyon pracitioners ever have that?

Why does your argument stop there? Why don't you argue that Karate is just a Japanese version of Okinawa- Te? Versions of the Shorin and Shrei Ryus? But why stop there. Some historians would simply say that since Shorin is the Okinawan pronunciation of Shaolin, than it's all just versions of the Chinese systems.

So, I guess what you are really saying is all those martial arts, Okinawa -Te, Karate, and TKD are just versions of the Chinese systems. Right?

Why does your argument stop there? Why don't you argue that Karate is just a Japanese version of Okinawa- Te? Versions of the Shorin and Shrei Ryus? But why stop there. Some historians would simply say that since Shorin is the Okinawan pronunciation of Shaolin, than it's all just versions of the Chinese systems.

Why not? But, in any case, difficulty in drawing a line is no reason for drawing it.

TKD's founders studied Shotokan Karate, but the founders of Shotokan Karate may not have studied Shaolin.

Why does your argument stop there? Why don't you argue that Karate is just a Japanese version of Okinawa- Te? Versions of the Shorin and Shrei Ryus? But why stop there. Some historians would simply say that since Shorin is the Okinawan pronunciation of Shaolin, than it's all just versions of the Chinese systems.

Why not? But, in any case, difficulty in drawing a line is no reason for drawing it.

TKD's founders studied Shotokan Karate, but the founders of Shotokan Karate may not have studied Shaolin.

Funakoshi is the founder of Shotokan. In his book he clearly referencess the Shotojkan foundations in the Shorin and Shorei systems. So your comment "may not have studied Shaolin" system is without merit if you accept the common premise of Shorin being the Okinawan pronunciation and derivation of Shaolin.

I consider TKD to be a Korean version of Karate. No denier has ever explained why, if that's not so, they have the same belt system and same type of white uniform as Karate - did Taekkyon pracitioners ever have that?

Why does your argument stop there? Why don't you argue that Karate is just a Japanese version of Okinawa- Te? Versions of the Shorin and Shrei Ryus? But why stop there. Some historians would simply say that since Shorin is the Okinawan pronunciation of Shaolin, than it's all just versions of the Chinese systems.

So, I guess what you are really saying is all those martial arts, Okinawa -Te, Karate, and TKD are just versions of the Chinese systems. Right?

Yes, arguably they are all (at least partially) adaptations of Chinese systems, over time they developed their own distinct characteristics though, and are very different from their parent arts.

I'll say it again:

All the older TKD forms come from Karate, if the forms have any bearing on how the art is practiced (seems iffy tbh, I know plenty of TKD put little real emphasis on them as anything but physical exercise or presentations) then clearly, the forms being shared with their parent art of Shotokan makes a good case for styles being similar.

I suspect the real answer to this lies in the practitioners themselves though, if kata is little more than a distraction in your TKD, chances are it will share less in common with a tradtional Karate style...if however you are more interested in the "combatives" side of things and your curriculum is somehow logically linked to Kata syllabus...it might just look alot like Karate.

P.S. on Shorin Ryu: it may mean "Shaolin" yes, but it doesn't seem to look anything liek Shaolin kungfu styles, and to the best of my knowledge links between the two are few and far between...this is NOT the case with TKD and Shotokan.

From my own observation of these arts, they are exactly like their Japanese counterparts with the Korean emphasis on kicking techniques. With the exception of Kumdo which is like kendo.

Well, then, as it pertains to the Chang Ho system of TKD I would say your observation is lacking. Major fundamnetal difference with Shotokan is the theory of level headed stepping for Shotokan versus the knee flexion and noticeable up and down motion of the Chang Hon style. The up and down motion / knee flexion is not unique to this system since it can be found in western boxing and is even mentioned in Bruce Lee's reference to the one and 2 inch punch. The same is found in references to "Kinetic Linking" as was addressed on a "Fight science Show"

The variety of Kicking techniques are vastly different than Shotokan as is the idea of generating power even while jumping versus the firmly rooted theory of Karate.

So, to what extent are they exactly the same? Well, no more than Karate is exactly the same as it's Okinawa-Te roots.

From my own observation of these arts, they are exactly like their Japanese counterparts with the Korean emphasis on kicking techniques. With the exception of Kumdo which is like kendo.

Well, then, as it pertains to the Chang Ho system of TKD I would say your observation is lacking. Major fundamnetal difference with Shotokan is the theory of level headed stepping for Shotokan versus the knee flexion and noticeable up and down motion of the Chang Hon style. The up and down motion / knee flexion is not unique to this system since it can be found in western boxing and is even mentioned in Bruce Lee's reference to the one and 2 inch punch. The same is found in references to "Kinetic Linking" as was addressed on a "Fight science Show" The variety of Kicking techniques are vastly different than Shotokan as is the idea of generating power even while jumping versus the firmly rooted theory of Karate. So, to what extent are they exactly the same? Well, no more than Karate is exactly the same as it's Okinawa-Te roots.

I agree whole heartedly with Master Weiss & as I stated it really is in the eye of the beholder & their perspective. We must realize & I am sure most do, that all MAs have things in common. At the same time they have things that seperate them. I guess people will judge whether the differences outweigh the similiarities or actually pass a point where they "feel" it is a distinct MA.

While topic may continue to go in circles, not only would adding definitions help, but I ask what I think is a critically important question:How are you defining Chang Hon or ITF TKD? To me & I think for Master Weiss, it would be a school that is registered & up to date with 1 of the ITFs or major ITF like orgs. They keep current by attending seminars & tournaments, getting their certification through applying the standard syllabus, wear the proper ITF dobok, follow Gen Choi's books & teachings etc.Honestly I don't know how many people actually have had close experiences observing a school, instructor & students like this, as most TKD schools are independent or do Kukki TKD, following WTF rules & poomsae etc.

While topic may continue to go in circles, not only would adding definitions help, but I ask what I think is a critically important question:How are you defining Chang Hon or ITF TKD?

I don't know!- Is Chan Hon or ITF based on April 11, 1955?- Is it the early years up until the mid Sixties!- Is it the period of the mid Sixties to early Seventies when TKD was taught to the troops in Vietnam and spread World Wide by a number of Pioneers?- Or is Chang Hon what was taught originally to the North Koreans in the early eighties?- What about when the first encyclopedia was developed?- Maybe "true" Chang Hon is after Park J.T. left the ITF and "techniques" changed yet again? - Maybe Chang Hon was when GM James Choi was helping his father?- Maybe 'True" Chang Hon ITF was what was taught just before the split of the ITF before the General's death?- How about after Gen. Choi's death when there was another split or two?

At what point of time do you choose as the "True" Chang Hon or ITF?

Quote:

To me & I think for Master Weiss, it would be a school that is registered & up to date with 1 of the ITFs or major ITF like orgs.

Which ones? ITF - ____ ones or any orgs. with a connection to the ITF dating back in history?

I have seen seminar pictures of Masters and Grand Masters getting corrected by other Masters or Grand Masters. If I posted a picture: Is the Master in the photo getting corrected because his technique is wrong? Or is it not current? He is a Master after all! And is the Grand Master correcting actually correct and or current as well?

Quote:

Honestly I don't know how many people actually have had close experiences observing a school, instructor & students like this, as most TKD schools are independent or do Kukki TKD, following WTF rules & poomsae etc.

I wonder why there are so many independent Chang Hon based/background schools?

I don't know!- Is Chan Hon or ITF based on April 11, 1955?- Is it the early years up until the mid Sixties!- Is it the period of the mid Sixties to early Seventies when TKD was taught to the troops in Vietnam and spread World Wide by a number of Pioneers?- Or is Chang Hon what was taught originally to the North Koreans in the early eighties?- What about when the first encyclopedia was developed?- Maybe "true" Chang Hon is after Park J.T. left the ITF and "techniques" changed yet again? - Maybe Chang Hon was when GM James Choi was helping his father?- Maybe 'True" Chang Hon ITF was what was taught just before the split of the ITF before the General's death?- How about after Gen. Choi's death when there was another split or two? At what point of time do you choose as the "True" Chang Hon or ITF?

All great points which goes to show how fragmented TKD really is. However, while effective at demonstrating that valid point, it confuses the issue really, of an already confused issue, LOL!So I guess I would use the timeframe or point in 2002 as my definition, but I tried to further clarify by adding some of the things I did, like doboks, tour rules, certs, movement etc. While it is also very true that all 3 ITFs & the many ITF like orgs are starting to have differences, they are imo still rather minor & small in number.These differences pale in comparison, again imo, to the Chang Hon that started in the 1950s in the Oh Do kwan. That I think could be better described as Korean karate with the addition of some new Korean forms which were similiar to the karate roots they came from, minus an of the 2002 movement, chambers, formation & terminology.

My overall point & I am sorry if it was not clear, is that the ITF is the smallest group, by far. I think it is clear that the independents are by far the largest group. With the WTF/KKW being the largest & most powerful organization with way more influence that all of them put together.

With this in mind, I am speaking to the non ITF MAist or NON ITF TKD student. Since the ITF is so small, depending on where you live, you may never see a 2002 timeframe ITF school. Then, in situations like this, these non ITFers may see a Korean karate school that happens to do the Chang Hon forms in a karate kata like way & confuse that for an ITF up to date, registered Dojang, from the 2002 period & then make comparisions or critiques. That is my point, which your post did not catch or reply to, sorry for the confusion.

TKD is like the car the Corvette. This car first came out around 1953 and is still in production today. Every few years there was a small change to the styling of the car and sometimes to it's engine, chassis or interior workings of the vehicle. The looks and workings of the Corvette between 1953 and 1963 was quite different but yet not all that dramatic as the spirit of the car was still there. Again from between 1963 to '69 models more changes in the stylistic look and inner workings of the Corvette. And the same can be said through the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's through until today but yet when you see this car it is still a Corvette!

Obviously TKD is not a car but I think we can draw some parallels.

The Corvette had to be based on something, a previous experience in the car industry. TKD is based on previous experience in Karate (Shotokan).

If you own and drive a 1958 Corvette you still own and drive a Corvette though it is and older style. Same as TKD.

Because you do not belong to a Corvette Organization(club) does not mean that you no longer have a valid Corvette. The same as TKD!(Organizations, Seminars, Tournaments, uniforms etc.)

I know this analogy leaves some room for argument as a car is a physical thing, a tangible object. That TKD, ITF-TKD are always growing and being updated. But once the first manual or comprehensive Tae Kwon Do book was complied and printed to a large degree the style was set! And this is where one major problem lies! Every time there is a new edition of the reference book it realistically nullifies all previous ones as it is now the current curriculum. But whenever there is a debate about proper or true technique the older books are referenced and brought to the forefront instead of growing into the new standard or curriculum.

Is TKD basically Shotokan or Karate with lots of kicks added, sure but with a lot of changes over the years to style and the inner workings of the system!

Is TKD basically Shotokan or Karate with lots of kicks added, sure but with a lot of changes over the years to style and the inner workings of the system!

No problem with your analogy. My only point is that many look at or define Chang Hon or ITF TKD as a school that does the Chon Ji forms. To me, that simply does not do it for me. Period end of story. This is because some can do Korean karate, but just utilize some or all of the Chon Ji forms, but do them karate style, which is not a problem & I see nothing wrong with that. However, they are simply NOT doing iTF Chang Hon TKD as I define it.This is the only reason I( bring it up, as I am not sure how many posters here have actually been to, seen or trained in an up to date ITF Do jang, as I offered previous critera for illustration purposes only to facilitate an effect dialogue, thats all

But once the first manual or comprehensive Tae Kwon Do book was complied and printed to a large degree the style was set! And this is where one major problem lies! Every time there is a new edition of the reference book it realistically nullifies all previous ones as it is now the current curriculum. But whenever there is a debate about proper or true technique the older books are referenced and brought to the forefront instead of growing into the new standard or curriculum.

I am not sure if we agree or not. Perhaps the "Style was set" with the first book. But, IMNSHO the problem was with many pioneer instructors teaching the style with habits from their previous systems and kwans. Took me a long tim to realize that is why different pioneers did things differently. Then I began to see a pattern such as those with a Chung Do Kwan lineage doing certain things. It was not until I took my first course with gneral Choi that I realized how various habits of pioneers migrated thru to their progeny.

IMNSHO the system changed little since my first experience with General Choi in 1990, and those I know who spen tmore time with him in the 1980's would probably say even before that.

As has been pointed out in other discussions he would concentrate on different points at courses as the students learned more and more the specifics of what he wanted, addressing the larger issues first and leaving smaller issues for another time. The evolution in how he taught was viewed by some as making changes since he might later correct finer points that were not addressed at earlier courses. His explanations also evolved over time. By this I mean that the system did not change, but the way he described things did.